Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Ok, a friend linked this video, and I decided to give it a watch, it was right up my alley of interest. While I've learned enough to know he's throwing around some established ideas, I also know I'm not qualified to claim bunk or true on this....it's just too much, from too many branches of differing disciplines. Besides, the best info I could find on this guy is that he was well know WoW Troll who gathered a legion of followers to cause havoc on teh interwebs. Then he pops up into the most challenging and important field in current science? He could just be stirring up enough established terms, and hiding some crackpottery among them.

So I figured: "Where better to see if this was BS than good ol JREF?" I'm largely an observer here (see: post count). I really couldn't find that this has been tackled anywhere here, and the search tool was no dice. So what do you accredited minds say? Is this just something to distract lazy stoners and crackpots? "Whoa, you mean I can be telepathic, if I just believe I can be? Far out...."

Judging a Book by its Cover 101a: Any Theory of Everything that does not have comprehensive mathematics is an hypothesis at best.

Judging a Book by its Cover 101b: Any Theory of Everything that tries to link every thing with consciousness is doomed to fail.
Gravity and all of the other forces are not a phenomena of consciousness.

Judging a Book by its Cover 101c: Any Theory of Everything that has C = h*f where C is consciousness, h is Planck's constant and f is frequency is doomed already. (and that is just from a quick flick through the video).

My friend recently told me about this as well: he wanted my opinion because he didn't know enough about Quantum Mechanics to refute anything in the video. I think a lot of the appeal of this video is due to the understandable difficulty with comprehending General Relativity and QM. That and anything that talks about consciousness will draw the mystic crowd.

The video is split into two parts, "God is in the Neurons" and "The Grand Scheme of Things." The first part is fairly accurate and, other than some questionable claims which I chalk up to a language difference, unobjectionable. It mostly discusses how conscious beings are interconnected by our senses, even though it seems to equivocate the concept of the "self" for practical purposes with the metaphysical claim that the "self" is a truly isolated system. The second part, though, is where things go really, really, really wrong.

First off, as others have already stated, consciousness has absolutely nothing to do with the shotgun wedding of GR and QM at the Big Bang. How could it? There were no conscious beings at the time. Secondly, the description of GR, especially the use of the phrase frame of reference, is either confusing because of a language difference, or outright bogus; I've never heard anyone use frame of reference as was used in this video.

The most egregious failure, however, was his attempt at quantizing consciousness: instead of breaking down the macroscopic phenomenon of consciousness into its constituent parts, he just claims a snapshot of one's mind is a quantum of consciousness. One could very well do the same thing with a phenomenon such as lightning, taking a snapshot of it during a strike and labeling it "L." This provides absolutely no useful information whatsoever and is obviously dead wrong. Once he's established this quantum of consciousness (C), he builds on it by fabricating the equation C = hf, claiming there's an anti-C (the consciousness of a being made of antiparticles???) and, at one point, somehow equates the planck constant with the speed of light! The last 5-10 minutes of the video make about as much sense as a nursery rhyme, and the claims made therein are all built on the false premise that this quantum C exists.

To conclude: it's a bunch of BS. I think it's rather hilarious, though, that a guy who found multinational acclaim for his ability to play a video game thinks he can take six months off and solve a problem on which the brightest physicists have been working for close to a century.